encapsulated and the trials and bankruptcies would be delayed. it is a way for businesses to start over. it is cost-efficient. were the founders of the constitution went bankrupt. this is an old problem. they have to know bankruptcy law, state law, property law, tort law, they have tremendous workloads. but they keep this economy going. if you slow that down and civil dispositions, where the damages are going to be paid to someone

who is the victim of a breach of contract, if you are potentially going to cause this because of criminal suits due to delayed, then you are threatening the efficiency of the legal structure. ..

president clinton who signed down into the recently wrote the question is whether it is consistent with the principles of the nation that on history to, quality and justice above all and is therefore unconstitutional, and quote. in the time that his pastor 1996, my view along with president clinton and colleagues, their face and makeup of our families herbology for what i think is for the better. those of us in congress, regardless for religion or party represents you in and nothing relationships you wish to have rights granted to a sitting on sitting on the podium today. i cannot in good conscience tell my constituents that their country does not value their

bond, their commitment her family. i ask you just to consider my words and thank you again. it's a privilege to have you before us today. thank you. >> thank you, ms. lo wei. we have a little time and i want to ask a couple of appropriations questions that mentioned earlier in your remarks, $3 million of requests this year would restore some operation defense preservation. as i go by the supreme court, is that the west for the looks like you're working and into the east front allender's and yours requires for money to fix that the north of us have, maybe just tell me what going on -- i guess i would call it different in the

back and what is next in terms of the architect of the capitol makes that decision. when i was chairman of the bridge come was when it is obvious to need a long list that what needed to be done. i assume that moved up on his list. could you talk briefly about that? >> was happening and this was not pretty need, at least we did not know about it is a marvel on the court because of moisture, because of flaky, and because of exposure to the elements is beginning to come off in a section of extra being. some big chunks of marvel have drop down. the scaffold will move all around the building and take a couple years to finish. they had but we call a screen,

which is what do you think ballet productions and dramatic reductions in theaters, which is the screen canvas that is for us today, of which are looking on is not really the supreme court. it's a picture of the supreme court is fascinating. it kind of reminds me of fight his case. at authenticator out of the cave and i see the shadows. so we're going to have to put up with this. this is not optional. >> finish the work you're doing now on the east and the west before you start to move around the building. >> my understanding this is going to be done in quadrants and they will finish the front before they could decide. different is the most dangerous part because that's where was

falling. >> thirty-nine dollars as the number given to the next part. -- >> that's the total cost going all around the building. >> north and south has been funded. >> got you. >> when you go by the supreme court come me see vehicle. instead it to you all are working on ways that somebody else? >> is going to be a vegetable garden. >> actually is part of the landscaping. we had to tear it up in order to make the subterranean edition that was done some years ago. this is the architect of the capitol and he understands the budget. >> one question 2013 it's my

name the recent million dollars request made for a police radio funding. the committee didn't prevent the million dollars. do you know whether the police radios were upgraded or acquired? if so, where did the money come from? >> to have to get back to i'm not. >> thank you for that. mr. serrano. >> are so thick to ban the protocol of the subcommittee to say from where we sit it's been wonderful to see and you can see the number of young people who've spent time watching this hearing. they been in the back, in a now for large groups have stayed for a long time. i'm always interested as we ally or and how they fare system and

what they want to do about it in the future in terms of involvement in opinions. listening to the vegetable garden, the lady is something we can be proud of today. let me ask you a question. i continue to be interested in seeing an increase unselected supreme court clerkships. i noticed the initiative in place in the federal judiciary to clued clerkship decisions. do you think these are starting to bear fruit? and also, as you speak at the command and another cd with young law, is a part of the message to encourage some folks to apply for these positions?

the mac law school for many years been a big teaching for 25 years and justice breyer was a member of the faculty. i am sure that all of our colleagues encourage young people to apply for clerkships. i used to apply linares court of appeals judge. they would say they wanted to be with me for the year. i just thought you i'm sure not deter the truth in advertising. the district courts to everything we do with the research cases, plus they say want to be with you. i say i understand. if you have a clerk to spend with the district court, they really have a respect for the record and the evidentiary process of young people in the appellate system sometimes the

training. i really encourage clerks to start with the district courts. one of the advantages if we have one here. if you're surrounded by young people, it gives you new perspectives and new energies. >> i have had quite a few in the question is has there been a change over the time and not? i have time to look far do a lot of encouragement. a little after 15 years ago. to say where and who in and say i'm not going to bite you. and please and so forth. i see the extent to which

requires an effort is improved last. but it still does require something of an effort. less than it did, but consciousnesses import. so i think it could encourage people at these levels then you'll see you're not doing anybody a favor. the effort pays off. it's worthwhile. >> that's the issue we discussed about applying the quote. we know right now it applies as an advisory situation. the different in the past change on that whole issue of applying the judicial comment? >> i've never had a problem with it because in my own professional career, i'm

absolutely confident in the career in the manner in which we consider those absolute binding. they can and be made by members of the relevant judicial committee urges district judges. we think it's potentially difficult for circuit judges to make rules that are binding on us. that is the binding her. as a matter of following those precepts, and justice breyer the last that we were here explained very well there are some different than refusals. if there's any reason at all for the district judge or court of appeals judge to recuse himself or herself, though do that.

on our court if we recuse without finding the necessary to do so -- >> at defending different guidelines. if there's a recusal problem, defenders said the corporal rate to the seven volumes. the chevy system in case you can't do that with the and serious. i cause some ethics professors. what's your interpretation, which today due? i see no difference right now between the supreme court in terms of the binding nature. if you go back to lie a racist questions. people love to argue those kinds of questions. you has the right to do what? .raise the necessary question and i don't see any necessity

now. the difference is that, better what justice kennedy said. he don't want to be payment related by somebody off of the case. so you're careful. >> at thank you for your answer. i have no further questions. i thank you for your testimony and your honest opinion on my case. we continue certainly in nine of the chairman shares this view i share with him i wrote to strengthen the judiciary to make sure during these difficult times is able to do what it has do a behalf of our communities and behalf of our democracy. what is beautiful about the young people here today in this two branches speak to each other is the fact we have a system that allows that any system where we can ask questions and

get answers and continue to function. sometimes it we forget that. we never wonder what it is that they want. i suspect in many cases that they want us exactly what we have is something very similar to that and i celebrate that as we speak to you. >> the last time i was on this committee, i guess a couple years ago we were sitting around chatting. justice breyer, you will remember, that is the young law student, i can remember a case -- a character member of the name the case. i always thought it was marbury v. madison. but this statement was that i've always remembered basically said versatility of circumstance of inbox a desire.

i always thought that was interesting, well fed. i'm not sure what it means. but i think maybe it means it's going to be flexible. when asked justice breyer appeared member dwight kees' response was, just go google it, which i did and it didn't come out. you ensure that day. does that ring a bell? that sounds like it may have come from -- >> john marshall used to see how many line he could remember, you could memorize. he had over 600. that affected his writing style. lincoln and churchill shared some common. they both read very few books and read them again and again.

yet shakespeare again and again. keep that you should read good books again and again. if you read trillion produce, is given. the quote you gave is sufficiently baffling. >> i'm going to keep looking. >> it's a good point for legislators and judgment. fabulous essay. he talks about love. he says justinian got angry. he said i'm going to fix those judges. what i am going to do is pass

because it's so complicated and so detailed that they won't though the substitute their own judgment. he says he was really. it's just me for the lawyers at the bar arguments you have. whether judges can do what they want. he said that's the worst possible thing. i'd rather live in a country that allows them to many laws like france. by the way, the reason is because human experience overflows balance. what we discover his circumstances, that we never thought of. so you have to keep a little

flexibility. i think that's the point. i love remembering that if a judge. when i used to work in the senate, on the stats i thought it's pretty good for legislatures and staff members. >> we have been joined. germany questions you like to pose? >> i was in another hearing right now, so i apologize. >> these are busy times for all the members. >> i want to state i feel little left out. i did play a judge outline and order once. maybe i just skip that part. >> we do thank you for being here to testify in one of the most interesting hearings we

have between what is a very important branch of our government. thank you again. we appreciate it. >> this meeting is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] imac part of the debate included

comments from republican senator ted cruz the tax base and senator frank stein -- feinstein. >> that they may pose a question to the leader in response to senator cornyn, you mention there's someone under pages of the bill that specify particular firearms that if this bill were passed, congress would have deemed prohibitive. it seems to me that although she began as a foundational document with the constitution.

and the second amendment in the bill of rights provides the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. the term, the right of the people, when the framers included in the bill of rights, the same phrases found in the first amendment to the right of the people to assemble is also found in the fourth amendment to be free from at least the bull searches and seizures. the question i pose is witchy teammate consistent with the bill of rights for congress to engage in the same in ever we are contemplating doing that the second amendment in the third or fourth amendment. would she consider constitutional for congress to specify only to the following books that show not apply to congress to stand outside the protection protection of the bill of rights.

likewise the protection against searches and seizures could properly apply only to the specified individuals and congress his team outside the protection. >> with the senator yield for a question. >> but they make a couple points and respond. one, i'm not a sixth-grader. i was the mayor for nine years. i walked in, saw people shot. i've looked at aggies shot with these weapons. i've seen the bullets then implode. sandy hook youngsters were dismembered. i'm not a lawyer, but after 20 years i've been up close and personal to the constitution. i have great respect for it. this doesn't mean weapons of war and the heller decision points out three, two of which are pertinent here.

so it's finally went to lecture me on the constitution. i appreciate it. just know i've been here for a long time. i passed on a number of bills. i've studied the constitution myself. i reasonably well educated and i thank you for the lecture. incidentally, this is not prohibited. it presents 2271 weapons. isn't that enough for the people in the united states? detainee abuse yuko? to donate other high-powered weapons and military people used to kill in close combat. i don't did so. i come from a different place than you do. i respect your view. i ask you to respect my view. >> mr. chairman, i can't pass anything to that.

>> i think nobody doubt sincerity or compassion. i ask you to not answer the question i asked, which is in her judgment, it be consistent with the constitution to specify and to use a specific -- >> the answer is obvious, no. >> could we keep -- i appreciate if we have a discussion. the educational board in schools, something that we would not do for long, but were not going to talk about your right. let's take the guns. >> mr. chairman, after she'd are acknowledging the state of texas allows books.

>> rejected by the first amendment. >> it's obvious there's different tests on different amendment. i think what the senator is going to point out a certain kinds of subset of materials. >> is your view that congress should be the business is specified particular books or for that with respect to the first amendment, particular individuals not covered by the bill of rights? >> congresses in the business of making law. the supreme court interprets the law. they strike down the law, they strike down the law. the test with respect to weapons to other things. i do not cover an exception for assault weapons. if they should pass, i'm sure that argument will be made. >> the senator from illinois.

>> that's exactly the point. the senator knows having attended law school and the constitution, none of these are absolute. the heller decision goes against this amendment and tell us when we're asked, a panel of republican appointed judges reject the a shall issue d.c.'s assault weapons ban and magazine limit the second amendment challenge. such laws do not effectively the same individuals are essentially affect their ability to defend themselves. i think the senator from california -- >> the clerk will call the roll. >> the conservative flow action conference is underway in washington

>> the public isn't paying this much attention as i had and you are and those of us who are part

of the political community. what i call the political community is probably about 10 million people. it's the people that watch c-span, "meet the press," fox news. they watch msn ec, to a lesser extent, cnn that they care about politics a lot. we had 120, 130 million voters and a lot of what goes on in politics in washington is background noise. the background noise comes pretty much from the mainstream idea, people forming an opinion of romney and obama in someone. the fox news doesn't reach most of his people. as a loyal audience, to look at the bill of rights that shows.

it gets to come the 3 million a night. we have a big country in the conservative media only reaches a tiny chunk. >> now, senator marco rubio, followed by senators rand paul the conservative political action conference and each spoke for 25 minutes. [cheers and applause] >> thank you very much can i thank you.

i love the hospitality, but this isn't not saturation. one should suffice. thank you so much. i'm so honored to be here to be back in cpac. maybe some of you were here three years ago. i can do hear my chances and u.s. senate were as much as my chance of winning a congress enclave. we went thanks to all of you and your political support. iran because i believe this country is extraordinary special and i believe it's in trouble and had it in wrong direction. as we gather here today, three years later i believe that more today than i did just three years ago. we have to do something about it and that's what we are here to about today. what a sense of a lot of people is this fear that america's change, they their people have changed, that we've reached a point in time and at too many people in america they want to much on government and maybe the changes that happen again.

that's not true. our people have not changed. the vast majority of the american people are hard-working taxpayers who take responsibility for the families, go to work every day, pay the mortgage on time. this is that the vast majority of the american people still are. that's changed is world around us. it's changed my equity. think how much the world has changed in the last 10 years. the global economy is real. everything you buy, everything you saw, everything he touches impacted by things happening halfway around the world. the information age is real. it's made our life easier. it's not the right not to take pictures with your thoughts and tweet every word i say for or against me. it's also changed our economy. you go into a grocery store today and you will find machines

doing the jobs people once used to do. one person because of automation can do the work that you used to do. is the world around us has changed. this has had an impact on our people, on our hard-working people. jobs they've been doing for 20 years disappeared overnight. many of them do that the right way. they pay their mortgages on time. and now in the housing bubble came, they were stuck with a bill for bailing out the banks that caused it, for bailing out to people who took out mortgages they couldn't afford to pay. everywhere they look, they see trouble around them. they look to washington d.c. as if they don't have enough trouble to begin with. they look at the political process whether it is fair not. but many of them see as

one-sided fighting for the people who have made it in all the other side does this type of government policies and they don't want to take away from anybody. they don't want to take away from people who have made it for the people trying, but they wonder who's fighting for them? who's fighting for the hard work and everyday people who do things right and not complain that he built this nation has made it acceptable. as limited government and free enterprise is our challenge and opportunity, to be their voice. either way, i can't think of a better call because our hard-working middle-class is one of the things that makes people different and special from the rest of the world. unfortunately, every country in the world have four people, but the widespread middle-class america does.

everyone should have an equal opportunity to be a part of the middle-class. it sets us apart from the world. and not by eager to be about infighting among people that believe in limited government. that's really a foolish notion. people who disagree on all sorts of things work together all the time on things they do agree on. there has to be a movement in america for people who believe in limited government, constitutional principles in a free enterprise system and that should be asked. [cheers and applause] in order to work together with people you disagree with, there has to be mutual respect. that means i respect the buddhist aggressor things, but they have to respect me, too. just because staged at the right to define marriage in a traditionally does not make them a bigot. [cheers and applause] just because we believe all

life, all human life is really a protection on every stage of development does not make you a chauvinist. [cheers and applause] in fact, the people who are close minded american politics are the people that led to preach about certainty of science in regard to climate that ignore the absolute fact that science has proven that life begins at conception. [cheers and applause] and so, our challenge is to create an agenda, applying principles. our principal still work, applying time-tested principles to challenges of today. what is an agenda like that look like? i think government has three things to help it in limited government history thanks to do to help. the best place in the world to create middle-class jobs. that's why we need to engage in

the global economy through fair trade. we also need to engage in the world. if you live in an economy, america must be wise. we can't solve every war. we can't be involved in every conflict and we also can't be retreating from the world. athos is critically important because we live in a global economy. beyond that, when a progress energy policy, including oil and natural gas. [cheers and applause] are regulations have to be a private of a cost-benefit analyses. the government is trying to help the business community. in america, business does the government is their impediment, competitor, enemy. that has to stop. our monetary policy cannot be used to inflate things and distort our economy. we need to have a progrowth tax structure. not one designed to take from some and give to others.

last but not least, we believe in solving our debt problem, not out of some ideological affinity but because it's her to job creation. there were jobs have been created in this country because we have a $16.5 trillion that they scheduled to get weaker. that problem has to be solved and the liberal approach is a combination of fiscal discipline of rapid economic growth. there's no tax increase in the world that will solve our long-term problem. [cheers and applause] the second thing our government can hope is to us help ourselves by acquiring skills of the 21st century and that's what i think every parent in america should have the opportunity to send their children to the school of their choice. [cheers and applause] by the way, we should encourage career education. not everyone has to go to a

four-year abu arts college. when we graduate in markets not with a high school diploma, but an industry certification and career, a real middle-class career. [cheers and applause] last but not least because i'm running out of time, do not underestimate. the impact a breakdown of the american family is having on their long-term future. [cheers and applause] governments role in solving that is limited. we have to talk about it for sure. we should recognize we have obligations in addition to individual rights and individual response abilities to each other, but not through government and community to our churches and a racist. i'm friends with the best in the conserver fellow americans to voluntary organizations for

every single day americans from all walks of life are changing the world one day, one neighbor at a time. last but not least, the cost of living is real and that's why you need a. they hope to we find that empowers americans to buy health insurance from any company in america to sell it to them. [applause] i last bought a cost of living and not hear about this. should be very concerned about student loan debt. is this the next big up on america. i graduate with over $100,000 in student loans and i paid it off luster with the proceeds of my book available on amazon are $12.99. shameless plug. [laughter] vermicelli tabulators. it hurts the middle class. their parents make a little too much to qualify for grants and i

have to i have student loan and we have to start solving a problem. there's all sorts of innovative ideas whether self-directed learning, empowering people with more information so they know how much do you expect to make and how much they can expect to owe. we have to tackle this issue. it's a major problem for future and a major problem for the american middle class. i tend this up, so let me close. a couple things. if you look at our government, you agree to be pessimistic. our governments never been america. america has never been a politician. with all the bad news out there, you can still find a tremendous promise of tomorrow in the everyday stories of the people. there's this couple i know i'm a suns tackle football team, seven years old. a couple that scary.

she works as a receptionist at a dental office, medical office. hugos boxes from trucks at a warehouse. i don't have to tell you they're struggling. they live in a small apartment, share one car. they are not freeloaders. they're not liberals. [laughter] [applause] are just everyday people that want what everyone else wants. they want a better life for themselves and even better life for their children. and they're desperate. the measure how much her prince post may be economy are susceptible to the argument to make the government is the only thing that can halt the mass where we had to come in and explain that's not true. the first thing they need is an economy that's created in the middle class jobs are both absent today themselves to the

better future. there are 3 million jobs available in america not filled because too many people don't have skills for those jobs. instead of being a receptionist, she can be an ultrasound tech. instead of floating boxes from hrt can access boxes. the third thing is a place for the cost of living is affordable, with increased isn't the way. the stakes are not just americans. the stakes are bigger than not. [cheers and applause] thank you. never the history of the world has water been so popular. [cheers and applause] i'll close by telling you what i think. it's a lot bigger than the american political debate. yesterday was the transition. this image of us go around giving speeches where he refers

to send thing called the china drain. you may save a disarming? on the telly with the china dream is. the china dream is a book written by a chinese army colonel. let me tell you the gist of the book is. i'll save you the time of reading. it should be to surpass the united states is the world's preeminent military and economic power. that's what the china dream means. in the forward he writes the 21st century should be erased to see who can become the champion country to the pro-progress. barbier here bickering and entering what government's role should be, as a nation trying to supplant this is the regain power world. you may say why does that matter? , say let someone else take the lead. believe me i understand. i do. it's frustrating. that may explain some things. let me explain what the chinese

government is. the chinese government provides no access to the internet. the chinese government will hold citizens prisoner without any rate to the course. the chinese government coerces and tortures people until they get confessions. the chinese government restricts the ability to assemble. if you escape china, they put pressure to forcibly return you. the chinese government is the birth of notation policy, which means in some cases they forced abortion and sterilization. the chinese government uses force labor in mississippi due what they do to their own people. we want that to be the leading country in the world? we want that to be the leading voice on the planet? that's what's at stake in america. this is not just national pride. the truth of the matter is don't take this for granted. but we have is different and special and historic. the vast history of the world

and mankind, it is poor and disadvantaged at the ability to get ahead. with many different as people about the real chance to get a better life no matter brittany started by. i'll tell you what the criticism on the left is going to be. number one, he tricked too much water. number two, he didn't offer any ideas. here's the fallacy of it. the idea is called americana and it still works. [cheers and applause] you want proof that it still works? you want proof that it still works, look around the world

today. are they copying? not the former soviet union. do not copy in russia. they are copying us with every step towards free enterprise. millions of people over the world emerging from poverty. millions of people emerging from generational poverty because they were inspired by the american idea. any claim to hate us, but they sure would like to be asked. [cheers and applause] and the question is in the world we live our children, but will be the dominant country in the world? that will be my shining example for the row? a country that describing china or other places are a country like ours? that is that the state can i believe -- i know will make the right choice because i believe in my heart what i've always believed that if they give the opportunity of upward mobility though do what they've always

done. they will sustain a vibrant underclass benefit of our children the skills they need for the 21st century, both do what americans have always done. they will change the world for the better. if we do are supposed to do, will always be who were destined to be, the single greatest nation in the history of the world. thank you very much. [cheers and applause] ♪ [cheers and applause] >> rehear stands with ramp? [cheers and applause] i thought so. all of us at the young america

foundation will honor to have been headlined our conference i sent her a note the americans with the recent filibuster. the honorable grant powell in 2010 has proven to be not stoking champion for fiscal responsibilities and is obviously a lawyer can confirm it. without further ado, please welcome rand paul. [cheers and applause] >> i was told i got 10 measly minute. but just in case, i brought her to an hours of information.

[cheers and applause] also came with a message for the president, a message that is loud and clear, a message that doesn't miss words. [inaudible] >> that's not exactly what i was thinking. however, a 13 hour speech in the two words. the message is that no one person gets to decide your guilt or innocence. my question is about more than just killing americans on american soil. my question was about whether presidential power has limits. [cheers and applause]

they didn't put it well when he wrote nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test them in, give them power. president obama seemed once upon a time to respect civil liberties resigned along allowing an american system. an american citizen to be sent to guantánamo bay without a trial. president obama defends his signing by saving he has no intention bikeways defended german strikes on americans by indicating he had no intention of doing so. my 13 hour filibuster.

good intentions are not enough. [cheers and applause] the presidential oath of office states that will protect, preserve and defend the constitution. it doesn't say, well, i intend to but it's convenient. mr. president, could tensions are not enough. we want to know, will you do what she defend the constitution? isenhour wrote how far can you go without destroying from within what you're trying to defend from without. if we destroy our enemy, though the spec defines their freedom in the process, have we really want? if we allow one man to charge americans as enemy combatants

indefinitely detain or trauma, then what exactly is it that our brave young men and women are fighting for? [cheers and applause] montesquieu wrote there can be no liberty if you combined the executive and legislative branches. likewise, there can be no justice if you combined the executive and judicial branch. we separated a restaurant accusation and trial and verdict for a reason. while lewis carroll's white shadows sentence first, verdict afterwards, the reader's response is supposed to be that with the absurd. in our country, the police can arrest, but only your peers can convict. we price our bill of rights like

no other country. our bill of rights is what defines us. it's what makes us exceptional. [cheers and applause] too busy with this this this debate as frivolous, i say tell that to their account men and women who sacrificed their lives and mods. tell that to the 6000 parents of kids who died as american soldiers in iraq and msn. taliban the bill of rights is no big deal. [cheers and applause] tell it to sergeant jd williams is one of my neighbors who lives in auburn, kentucky can if you. he sacrificed himself.

so jd who lost both legs and an arm his sacrifice was great, but we had to suspend the bill of rights. i don't think so. [applause] the filibuster was about drones, but zero so much more. do we have a bill of rights? do we have a constitution? and will be defend their? [cheers and applause] in his farewell speech in 1989, reagan said as government expands, liberty contracts. he was right. government cannot do this or liberty. our rights come from our creator. as government grows, liberty becomes marginalized. the collective takes precedence over the individual. freedom shrinks and our government today is larger than

the other than our history. everything that america has been, everything we wish to be his mouth but to do something for nothing. you can have your cake and eat it too. you can spend a chilly in dollars and every year that you don't have. we keep adding to $16 trillion debt. the president seems to think they continue to borrow $16,000 a second. the president believes we need to squeeze where many of those who are working. he's got it exactly backwards. [applause] what we need to do is keep my money in the pockets of those who earn it.

[applause] look at how ridiculous/and politicians have behaved or the sequestered. the president today will listen every trillion dollar sequestered that he enjoys it and sign law. some republicans joined him, but the sequestered -- even with the sequester, will grow over $7 trillion with the next decade. only in washington can an increase in spending because they cut. [applause] now the president is trying to step up and do his fair share of dirt sequester was announced. how to do this because these

cuts were imposed by the sequestered. meanwhile, within a few days, the president signs an extra $250 million to spend to reach it. [booing] unite the country mobs attacked or embassy, burned our flag and chanting death to america on an extra $250 million to reward them. you know the country whose president recently stood by the leader who called for death to israel and all who support it. not 1 penny more per bird in flags. [applause]

but i do want to help the president. i have a few suggestions. i'm sorry it couldn't have lunch again today. maybe he'll be able to see this c-span. [laughter] so asked the president he wants to schoolchildren back in the white house. what about the $3 billion we spend studying monkeys on maps. ..

>> mr. president, maybe we could have had a robotic squirrel appeared for anyng fyo jobs, une sam has a job for you. it pays $5000 all-expenses-paid to study in hawaii. but the requirements are onerous only if you are qualified. you have to like developing a menu for when we colonize mars. i am not making this up. guess what a bunch of college students came up with for the menu? pizza. [applause]

you can cut one of these programs in return for letting the schoolchildren come to the white house. this government is completely out of control. we desperately need new leadership. [applause] the passport to the republican party is rooted in respect of for the constitution and respect for the individual. part of that respect is allowing americans to exercise one of their most basic rights. the right to bear arms. [applause] but you cannot protect the second amendment if you do not protect the fourth amendment. if we are not secure in our homes. if we are not secure, can we really believe that the right to

bear arms will be secure? we need to zealously guard all of our securities. all of our liberties. [applause] the facebook generation can detect falseness and hypocrisy a mile away. i know because i have kids. they are the core of the leave me alone coalition. they doubt social security will be there for them. they worry about jobs and money in and grants and student loans and they won't leaders that won't feed them a line of crap or sell them short. they are not afraid of individual liberties. [applause] [cheers] ask the facebook generation whether we should put a kid in jail and you will hear a

resounding no. [applause] asked the facebook generation if they want to be bail out too big to fail banks and you will hear a heck now. >> there is nothing conservative about bailing out wall street. likewise, there is nothing progressive about billion-dollar loans to millionaires to build solar panels. [applause] the republican party has to change by going forward to the classical and timeless ideas enshrined in the constitution. when we understand that power corrupts, absolutely then will

we become the dominant national party again. it is time for us to revise the laws and expand government. [applause] for the economy to grow, government must get out of the way. this month i will propose a five-year balanced budget. and my budget illuminates the department of education. [applause] and dissolves power and money back to the state where they belong. my five-year budget will create millions of jobs by cutting the

corporate income tax and half. by creating a flat personal income tax of 17%. and cutting the regulations that are strangling american businesses. [applause] the only stimulus ever proven to work is leaving more money in the hands of those who earned it. the constitution must be our guide for conservatives to win nationally and we must stand for something. we must stand on principles and stand for something so powerful and so popular that it brings together people from the left and the right in the middle.

we need one that shouts at the top of our lungs that we are the party of jobs and opportunities in the gop is the ticket to the middle class. [applause] the gop of old has grown stale and moss covered we don't need to name names. our party is in common by the inconsistent approach to freedom. the new gop will embrace it in the economic and personal sphere. if we are going to have a

republican party that can win, liberty needs to be the backbone of the gop. [applause] we must have a message that is broad and our vision must be broad, and the vision must be based on freedom. there are millions of americans, young and old, native and immigrant, black and white and brown who simply seek to live free and practice their religion and choose where their kids go to school and free to choose their own health care and to keep the fruits of their labor and free to be about government on their back. i will stand for you. [applause] i will stand for our prosperity and our freedom. i ask everyone who values liberty to please stand with me. [applause] thank you, god bless america.

[applause] >> the annual meeting also looked at middle east policy and the terrorist attacks that killed four americans in benghazi, libya. this hour-long forum began with comments by congressman ernest istook. >> it is interesting to me there so many people that said, well, of course the president was lying. after all, it was only about sex. and everybody lies about that. how many times have you had anything that involved federal spending or campaign finance? and you can't get a straight answer? for example, what is the minimum cost so we are told that

politicians are not truthful when it comes to money. however, i believe that benghazi has struck a resonant chord with people all across the country. because the concern is that the president and his people were lying about matters of life and death. that is in such a different category than anything else. our panel is next to explore -- well, we are not able to give you a formal report what happened. if you read through the findings of this state department report,

you find that it leaves many questions unanswered as those that are answered. and we still don't know how many people were injured. are they still at walter reed medical center in washington dc? have they been released? we can get a straight answer about that. if you have been one of the 12 u.s. senators who had a chance to dine with president obama, what might been one of your questions to him? well, what happened that night? we still have mysteries and we are told that the fbi is investigating things. well, if you look at the orders that were given to the fbi about what they are supposed to be investigating, it is very curious. because the state department investigate what investigated what went on in the state department and the fbi was taxed

to tell us what went on overseas. but nobody has been asked to investigate what went on at the white house that night. it is a glaring omission. who wants to know? do you want to know? why do you want to know? what difference does it make? and when we get answers like that, nothing that you ask has any importance. what difference does it make? i mean, the president, saying that i don't want to balance a budget just for the sake of it, i don't want to tell the truth to the american people just for the sake of being open and honest. he has higher purpose is to serve. benghazi, i suppose, serves the

purpose that you could go to vegas next day and have a good rest, and raise funds they are. so benghazi is about the shame of the media in failing to answer these questions. not even noticing that the things that the president commissioned as investigations omitted the white house itself. neither the state department nor the fbi passed with that. if and when the fbi finishes their work, maybe somebody will notice that they didn't do something at the white house. but by then, the whole obama administration is that it's going to be too late. so now is the opportunity that we are going to be hearing from our panelists. each of us will present a little bit of a perspective on the panel about what happened that

night. and i will have some q&a interaction and we will see even if we cannot, i'm sorry, even if we cannot answer the questions for you, perhaps we can help people to understand what are the right questions so that someday, whether it be a presidential candidate or a cnn moderator, or senators having dinner with the president, maybe somebody can come up with the right questions to ask and then hope and pray that someday we will get the proper answers. let me turn the time over to our panelists to make their remarks. roger? >> thank you very much, congressman. please hold your applause. [applause] >> somebody paying attention. let me begin by making a stark appraisal of what we learned

from benghazi. many of you remember the famous commercials during the 2008 campaign about the 3:00 a.m. phone call. the primary lesson is that that phone call went to voicemail. and we have a president who takes responsibility for only one thing, as far as i can tell, which is improving his goalscorer. he does that because that's something that only he can do, right? well, when you are president of the united states, there are a lot of things that only you can do. benghazi is actually two separate scandals. one includes the events of that terrible night and the other is a cover-up. the folks in this room probably understand much better than most americans because they pay attention and are critical about

the things that our government does. but let's review those things and take a quick look at them. i have about five minutes here. the response would show gross mismanagement with a colossal blunder and i had experiences when our embassy in port-au-prince, haiti, was the third most dangerous post after baghdad and kabul. and we had problems with american citizens being attacked and the ambassador was responding come asking for security precautions to be taken and we took them. let me tell you something sort of interesting. i worked for two secretaries of state. both of them independently, spontaneously, they asked me about security in port-au-prince. thank goodness i had a good answer. we did our jobs and we were

secure. if something had happened, i can assure you that the last thing i would've told either one of those bosses was what difference does it make. because if i had said that, that would've been the last thing i said in that job. why were we not ready for benghazi? well, al qaeda was on the run. benghazi was bloody evidence of a resurgent al qaeda, murdering a u.s. ambassador and raising the flag of u.s. territory, not only in gaza, but other capitals. in the worst of all of that. dozens of americans left to fend for themselves for 47 hours without any help coming. secretary leon panetta testified after this process and said we cannot have the american military in harms way. well, if there are americans

facing harm, that is exactly what the american military needs to be and what they need to do. quite frankly, it is shameless did some irresponsible, anonymous person wanted to stand down instead of stage a rescue and doesn't have the guts to come forward and take responsibility for that decision. the second part of this is the cover-up itself. we know this. even before the it incident was first blamed, they knew that wasn't true. but they served up the cover story repeatedly, shamelessly and indignantly for months thereafter. maybe it was because they were totally uninformed with what was going on. let me emphasize another lesson from benghazi. and you will notice.

american journalism, as we knew it before, american journalism is dead. rather than raise the questions, the tough questions that the congressman was mentioning, they have behaved like hockey goalies in front of barack obama's net. we have a government that lies to people with impunity, it makes a big difference in a very dangerous world. because u.s. credibility is sometimes only thing that stands between where we are and chaos and security threats. what is that like today? there is less piece and more process. there is no idea for jump starting the process, and that

is the least of our problems. if he had ideas committee would probably be bad ones. iran is creeping towards a nuclear bomb. and the sanctions were adopted too late by the congress over the objections and al qaeda is resurgent in spreading throughout africa. the american people have done so much to stand on their own because that is precisely where we are leaving them on their own. hundreds of thousands of refugees stabilizing this. you have the right to remain silent. now, more than ever, we need a president that is engaged and will make tough decisions and stand behind them.

thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon. it is a privilege to be with you here today and to be honest panel and follow senator rand paul. in the spirit of debate, i would like to begin my remarks on benghazi with a small criticism of senator paul's stance on foreign policy. a constructive one, i hope. i love the guy and his filibuster was brilliant. long overdue. but while he was right on the constitution, he was wrong on the law of war, especially the distinction between a combatant in a noncombatant. conservatives cannot follow his definition of it now stands, or

we will not deserve to be taken seriously on foreign policy. let's start in benghazi. the attack on the u.s. consulate in september was the worst national security failure since the original 9/11. it truly deserves the label scandal for three reasons. one because president barack obama and his administration lied about the attack. number two because the media aided the cover-up. and number three is because the president did nothing to rescue those at the conflict, including ambassador chris stevens. but benghazi was not just a national security failure. it was also a constitutional failure. the president has a constitutional duty to act as the commander in chief and he failed to do so. he did not, as he once claimed in a tv interview with a

reporter in denver, one of the few reporters he got past the hockey goalie, he did not issue what he claimed was going on in benghazi. nor did he communicate with his cabinet throughout the evening after learning of the attacks, and we now know that the cabinet members did not talk to each other either. president obama's dereliction of duty, because that's what it was, in benghazi, reinforced a global perception of growing american weakness. al qaeda had lost its leader, but regain its momentum. we have done little to challenge chinese ambitions in the western pacific and we have to pick deleted to missile defense and most of all, we have failed to prevent iran from advancing towards detaining nuclear weapons. in speeches, of course, the obama administration insists that all options are on the

table, including a military option. but iran considers our actions and not president obama's words. and what they see as a president committed to retreat. in june 2009, ron was surrounded east and west by us-led troops. over 60,000 in afghanistan and over 100 30,000 in iraq. that likely encouraged them to rise up after the stolen elections that summer. we could help the green revolution. we could have declared the government of iran are legitimate. we could've done something diplomatic instead of a military response, which president obama and his new secretary of defense are very fond of. but had we intervened in a small way, we could've helped them overturn the government and its nuclear program and its support for terrorism worldwide without

the firing of shock. but we allowed the regime time to regroup. by next year, ron will face 12,000 at most in afghanistan and one u.s. navy carrier in the persian gulf. iran remains the key strategic challenge that has formed alliances with groups like al qaeda and related groups and it has connections with muslim brotherhood government and it bridges the divide to fight common enemies. yet the regime remained weak, and this is key. because they are hated by their own people, we can remove them as a threat and we commit to a policy of regime change. by peaceful transition, if possible, and by military removal is necessary. regime changes are rarely the right policy.

but iran is one of the few places in the middle east were the obama administration refuses to support a popular uprising. but it can be toppled before iran harms our allies in the region or attack the u.s. homeland in some way. we suspect in the ron believes that president obama lacks the will to confront them, much less change them. but do we have the will to do so. that has been even more acute sense last week. at least one leader, a tea party leader, was prepared to stand up to the constitution. senator paul was wrong about one thing. it is not as easy to distinguish between combatants and noncombatants as suggested.

foreign terrorists do not stop being terrorists would because he or she is far from the battlefield. if we accept that it is never a legitimate target, we cannot protect ourselves from terrorists. we will have placed our liberty in danger. similarly, we cannot accept defense cuts that may prove more costly overtime by putting our security at risk. we should replace that with other cards. [applause] we cannot be serious about government if we are not also serious about all enemies, foreign and domestic. the reason we have our constitution is because our former system of government could not protect the nation

will pay the debt as we confront today's debt. we must not make defense, which is a first priority of government from the first target for cuts. the attack happened because the president sacrificed military readiness for domestic politics. we must learn from that mistake. our constitution calls for limited government and also calls for a government that can defend the nation. as we pare back the expense of government that came along with the war on terror after 9/11, we must see that through to victory and ensure that the military is ready for the next challenges. no protracted war can endanger the freedom of a democratic country. that is the point. it is also one that won a

democratic people engage in war after a long piece, it encourages risk of defeat than any other nation. and god he reminds us that we cannot defend liberty we don't take the fight to our enemies. thank you. >> good afternoon. it's good to be here. i have been an investigative journalist for 25 years. it doesn't make me very popular, but it does help give me an opportunity to take a look at things that go on in to challenge power and to try to get the truth out to an american public that yearns for it and the government that often doesn't provide it. in the course of his career, i have never been on a point in time i have seen a weaker media.

i think the congressman said it just right but benghazi, of course, is a failure of security and truthfulness, but it is also a failure of american media. we do not ask enough of the hard questions. what has happened to us has made us a bad equivalent of the silence i will lambs. the economy has shrunk in. there has been a great exodus and reporters used to have 30 and 40 years of experience. which really matters when you try to cover complex issues. they have walked out the door. they have also created a culture that the news of the moment is so important that they must tweet at comic at the top story, and therefore so much of the media today has become a hold and to the people who hand out the daily news. if you are afraid to buck that trend, you will never get to the bottom of the stories.

this deeply troubles me. the other day i was writing a story that would not be too favorable to the justice department. i was talking to one of the two spokespersons and i told him that there was evidence that the fbi director and attorney general had used a corporate jet that had been bought for the war on terror and were using it instead for their own personal travel. you can imagine the first few words out of the spokespersons now. i won't bother them here. it's not appropriate for a family audience. the board this, they actually said if you go with that, i will destroy you and i will make sure that you are embarrassed. honestly, they didn't because i'm here today. but more importantly, it was an idle threat. when we exercise the first amendment, which means going against the grain, i just want

to share for a couple of minutes what we have done. i made two decisions. one must go back home to one of my favorite places. i went back home to the times be the chief digital officer to try to build a new business model that would strengthen one of the great newspapers of the nation's capital. then i decided to take some of my own personal money in a couple of colleagues of mine, we put our money together and we started our own website called the washington guardian. we were not interested in the topline of the news, beginning the stories that other people aren't telling. we started over labor day weekend and just 10 or 11 days later, he became the beginning of benghazi. i was sitting with someone and i saw these reports. and i quickly said, for the last five years the states department had them in meeting the

requirements around the country. when i got to europe, i opened up "the washington post" and their story was that the state department said it did everything it could. well, not really. as for the document. that wasn't true. by that time, the story had emerged that this was a spontaneous attack from a crowd that had gotten angry. i said, who brings these and this is not possible. within 40 hours, the russian guardian said no, it was al qaeda extremists. some form of planning was there to carry out the attack and it had absolutely nothing to do with the video that had been making its way on the internet. well, it was u.n. ambassador that went on television and

said, people were saying no, that's not true. the media took that story until it no longer be sustained, then we started to get the shards of the truth. but for each story that we had, it was almost deeply troubling. if you think about the most recent storyline that we have, which is that somehow the administration knew the truth but a bunch of intelligence officers, they somehow edited out all of the storyline and no one figured out that it was going to be misleading. that is the official storyline and the news media didn't get that. so we were able to get a copy with what was the president's daily briefing and the president was told today that are benghazi

and three days before it susan rice went on television, that it was in fact al qaeda related. a semi-organized attack by extremists. how can it be that the media does not pick up those lines until the american people the truth is we have come to expect that? what can he do to change this? that is the next question. i'm sure you're not big fans of the media to start with. but there are some bright spots. if i could disagree with the ambassador little bit, we are probably on life support. there are bright spots. new media places are cropping up. those places give us the best opportunity in the media to get the truth back out and ask the hard questions that used to be asked. we all remember those. they're not worried what we are going to pontificate about.

but we are seeing some of those crop up. get behind them, support them. encourage children to journalism could actually be an honorable profession. and you have a place where you put your money. if you're subscribing to the publication today, you have a way to vote in how you advertise and there is an opportunity for folks at this convention here to send a message that it's time to clean up the act and reinvest in the truth. if you help us do that, i promise you that next year we will have a slightly better story to tell. hopefully not another benghazi. thank you for your time. i look forward to the q&a. >> i want to give our panelists an opportunity to discuss important aspects and elaborate on things.

i want you to listen closely to this quotation that i'm about to read you from president obama. it's from his speech given in cairo, june 4, 2009. i want the panelists to address is benghazi a symptom of a president who is about militant islam. this is the statement that he gave in cairo. i consider it part of my responsibility as president of the united states to fight against negative stereotypes of islam wherever they appear. i consider it part of my responsibility as president of the united states to fight against negative stereotypes of islam wherever they appear.

does that play into what we saw with the tragedy and then got the? gentleman? >> i know what the administration was telling me as i was trying to report the early stories. there were two storylines that resonated in my brain. one is that we need to be sensitive to the libyan government. i kept thinking that it is an act of war on our embassies attacked. it has dominated the discussion including earlier things. again, going back to my own profession, when we ask about where it is the interest in letting libyans take more interest. how can that be when iraq acted

up in the clinton years? we had 20 hours, two attacks before we got there. the sensitivity of lending too much credence to the region, beginning with the arab spring, beginning to be more concerned about that, is it right or wrong, that is for the american people to decide. as a journalist, i hear this everyday. >> it is not objectionable for the president to defend muslims. there are millions who are american citizens. but that's not what he said. he said islam as a religion or civilization or what have you. the connection to benghazi is tied to the story that was told and reiterated in the media about the video. the president actually went to the united nations and gave a speech after benghazi, talking about those who -- he was saying

those that were defaming islam. that is not why we elected him. that's not his role. i think the story is interesting because what the president was doing was actually not very subtle. what he was doing in the white house and everybody who bought into this idea that this caused all the trouble, who made the movie? someone in america. we didn't know the identity of the filmmaker at the time. but it was a christian filmmaker. this was a rehash of that from burning controversy where pastor was going to bring that ron and our generals and politicians felt they had to apologize to the rest of the world for this insensitive exercise of the first amendment and of the constitution. i'm not saying it's a great idea. but the first amendment doesn't exist to protect speech that you

like. so they reiterated that. [applause] the president was saying is don't blame my administration. blame these crazy people who do these things that offend the rest of the world. what is basically saying is that people in this room are the problem. those who defend their faith, those who defend their liberty and who don't give a dam about the rest of the world. they are the problem. absolving him of america. you don't have to accept american ideals and you don't have to accept the american people. i think it was a rehash of a narrative that the administration was a part of. that the media reiterated and that hollywood has reinforced. there is a cultural battle the administration is waging against people in this room, against

those who use the first amendment, whether it is religion or speech, and that was a disgrace. we knew that there were people scaling the walls of the embassy and talking about how we shouldn't be insensitive to the religious feelings of others. the first response was to dump on the first amendment. those who use it to express the idea in this room and at this conference and i think that that was the disgrace of really set the stage. [applause] >> let me just give you a quote from the united nations speech. president obama said this. the future must not belong to those who slander the profit of islam. but to be credible, those who

condemn that slander must also condemned the hate we see in the images of jesus that are desecrated or churches that are destroyed or what is denied. i would just note that the effort to provide balance, as it were, it was totally missing in the speech that was made in cairo. >> yes. i would say that the single biggest event in modern history that has hurt this image were the 9/11 attacks. and if you are going to prevent those sorts of attacks in the future against us and other innocent people, we have to do a better job of fighting terrorism. the sniper droned foreign policy, it's not without terrorists rather than capturing

them on the occasions when you can and taking them to guantánamo and not to manhattan. not telling them that they have the right to remain silent. but it is a better approach or tactic in this war. we could all pay very dearly for this ideological orientation that they have against guantánamo and the tactics that have kept us safe for a dozen years. part of that ideology is in the president's mind, the kind of orientation that he had as a young man growing up and growing into adulthood, this third world anti-colonial, anti-western orientation. i think that that is at the heart of a lot of us. that attitude that he has makes it less safe world. [applause]

>> one of the key moments, maybe even the turning point in the presidential race last fall, was in the second presidential debate where mitt romney asked the president, he says, obama said he called this an act of terrorism, you remember that moment. i believe that mitt romney asked the wrong question. the question that was posed by a member of the audience. it was never answered by president obama and i believe that mitt romney should've used his time to say, mr. president, why don't you answer the question from the audience. and i will give you some of my time to do so. this was the question from kerry. he said the question comes from my friends at global telecom supply.

does anyone know where that is? it's in east texas. okay. it shows the wisdom of everyday people as opposed to political people. we were sitting around talking about libya and we became aware of reports that the state department refused extra security prior to the attacks that killed four americans. here was the question. who was it that denied enhanced security and why. now, i would like to comment about what was the right question that should have been asked and how would you have made sure the president obama answered it. while on the national stage at a critical moment when things were still fresh.

>> there is one brave soul and cbs news reported on us. she probably keeps her resume handy. >> let's hear it for cheryl on her reporting on cbs. [applause] >> from my experience, when we were making those decisions on a regular basis about the security, first off it's a great honor to have the title of ambassador. if you are out in the far corners of the world and you are under attack, were first concern is the people that work with you. the very idea that nobody came and they made no effort to muster any sort of rescue attempt at all, i think that is scandalous. the very idea that people who are responsible for security,

these people should be fired. [applause] i don't remember which senator senator hillary clinton. >> senator johnson on the panel. >> he said you should have lost your job, i would have fired you. no one took responsibility for that. up and down the line, it is the attack that happened in those people should have lost their jobs and rightfully so. the scandal like this happens. i'm talking about congress asking questions in a timely way, people making themselves available and forced to make themselves available in some sort of accountability for the lives lost.

it is tragic that the father of one of the slain men standing there and next to him was hillary clinton, she says, we will get the guy who made that video. what an utter scandal. when she knew that it had nothing to do with the video. building a narrative, propagating politically motivated lies so outrageous. [applause] i think going back to the second debate, the question that mitt romney allowed himself to get trapped into was the question of whether the president called this attack? that is when candy crowley intervened. that was an important question because it went to the question of whether obama had lied to the american people. but it really was a secondary question.

the danger, when you let the media define the questions and host the debate, you let them suck you into these things and it is always the team of take away. obama said that it wasn't an act of terrorism and didn't release it until two days before everybody went to vote. they never release the tape until then. happen to be three weeks late, but, you know. the real question is what were you doing when americans were in danger? by that time, obama had made a very specific claim. the claim that could be questioned. this is the point about journalists not knowing what questions to ask are having that experience. obama said specifically that i

gave three directives as soon as i heard about what was going on in benghazi. one of them was to make sure the personal essay. the second one was to start an investigation as to how it happened in and the third was to make sure it never happens again. that is nice, after-the-fact, because none of that addresses the ongoing crisis with you can argue that making this guys. but when you make those directives? those are public documents, as they were, whatever they were -- evidence of those directives must exist. where the journalist asking jay carney everyday, we will sit here day after day until you give us the directives. where are they? one with the issue? there is no answer to that because they were probably never issued. i think it was a huge lie. why we know that? because subsequent testimony has

revealed that the president called no one, spoke to no one, contacted no one, convened no meetings. the only things we learned that happened in those hearings in january and february, the criticism we heard was from general dempsey saying that i can imagine she would have known about the security request that was denied in the cable that came through. another night, no one has really asked questions about what was done. that is what the media needs to do. it's so easy, but they're not doing it. [applause] >> that is spot on. >> is hard for me to handicap a question would've worked. we didn't have the complete story then and i don't believe that we do now. but i know it's a question that i could come back and be eight white house correspondent to. the president of the united states promised the american people that he would bring to justice the people that committed this.

it is now seven months and 12 days and when is he going to do this? that question never gets asked in the white house briefing. what about the families that are sitting back there when 9/11 occurred? you can go back to the times of saddam hussein when he violated the no-fly zone, things happen. we are still waiting on the libyans to give us explanations and it doesn't seem as satisfying as an answer. so when you were sitting there, susan rice went on television and use that with your presidential daily briefing and he knew what the real story was. did you feel compelled at all to quit the public record. no one has asked him that. they had to know that the story wasn't right. why did he not feel obligated to try to correct that. been to blame and on

intelligence. he told me the truth for you is after it happened. those are two questions that i would ask if i ever got a chance to. [applause] >> okay, thank you. >> gentlemen, i want to give you a chance, each of you have done a lot of work in digging into the rumors and the facts and the deceit and the on answer questions about benghazi. i won't give you each a chance to speculate, if you will, the degree to which it's pure speculation, informed guesses, or you really believe this is what happened. i would like to ask you what you believe is the dirty little secret of benghazi. secondly, we think president obama did that night that was so pressing. was his favorite movie on tv? what was it that he totally avoided making any calls, giving any instructions or whatever.

>> come on, have some fun here and. >> it's hardly a secret. we have talked about this once before. and then we walked away. then we forgot about it. what he was doing -- i know that every minute of the president's time is blocked out. when he knew and went to bed that night knowing that when he said these are my people, i send them out there -- how dare you say that i don't care about their well-being. well, you have to care more than going out to the dover air force base. when you leave them there

defenseless. that shows the president didn't do his duty. >> i think the dirty secret is that the administration understood that there were americans at risk and decided that they could contain the risk if they did not send further troops in. because there is always a risk when civilians are in danger, diplomats, that there will be more casualties. i think that what president obama and his advisers were worried about was that there would be many casualties. it happened many times in afghanistan. we lost navy seals when the helicopters were shot down.

we have lost lots of civilians and police officers, firefighters, they want to be in harms way there is always a risk that you're going to lose more lives the idea is that there would not be political damage. the argument made based on journalism and reporting was that every decision made by president obama about afghanistan was mediated through his political advisers he did

not act as commander in chief that night, but head of the political party and campaign. i think the dirty little secret is that they decided to cut their losses and to contain the violence and have people ready to go but not to sacrifice further u.s. personnel and assets in case there was more firepower on the ground and they knew about. i think that is the secret. [applause] >> the first attack occurred on the consulate itself and there

is probably no opportunity that military advocates that wouldn't help you to do to take care of the first attack. and then the media is blaming the security guys and those who lost this and that -- those who went through security detail and they were not there at all what are we doing in libya without having that capability. we need to get to the bottom of that answer. we know from the general that but no one ever asks for any access to go. that is a very important question and this is the

question that i get regular. no one wants to answer it. it makes no sense for an ambassador to be sitting in a location where they were just denied security. i talked to christopher stevens and he said it was chaotic. someone has to answer because it was a symbolic day for september september 11. and mr. ambassador, you don't go in without a good reason. someone has answered the question why did he go there. i don't think the administration wants to answer that question. i don't know why, but i'm going to say that. >> okay.

>> we kept the answers very brief. the fact that this attack occurred at the time when the president said osama bin laden is dead, and we have al qaeda on the run we saw from the attacks. ..

they get sponsorship for tolerance from states. they don't exist in a vacuum. kerry states that fund, arm, train and cover. syria is dependent on iran is one of the states and others as well. we have to go to the states. does not attempt to be militarily. his diplomatic ways, but we've got to step the people who are accountable to the international community directly because we give them foreign aid. we've got to stop them from promoting the acts of terrorism and ideology of terrorism feeling resurgence of al qaeda and other groups across the region. >> while we've learned was despite the fact the president made the gutsiest decision i've

are in the of mankind to kill osama bin laden and made two very good movies about it, al qaeda is a pressing threat. you have to remember hezbollah as well. i'm a latin american asked and i will mention hezbollah has a beachhead in venezuela. it is elsewhere. they partner with narcotraffickers that brings it right up to her border. i have to give credit to people like michael mccall and jeff duncan who focus on this thread because that's the one will face next. god for bid someone john kerry's before the and has the excuse an opportunity to see what difference does it make. >> great, thanks. roger noriega, joel pollack, thank you for spending time with us.

[applause] ♪ the conference also heard from rick perry for 20 minute. these >> got west texas. when they told me to come in they said which we do not need to go? to the left. i said i don't go left well at all. it is a big honor to be asked to come and speak and i want to see thank you to those that allowed me to calm and for all the bad things they say about washington, i never mind coming here. this is a fabulous place to

come. when we got here, i actually was a little surprised to step up our united flight and see that everybody was still here. the sequestration i figure president obama had shut the place down and send everybody home. actually, i would probably be the first good idea he has when you think about it. [applause] just kidding. mostly. i., from what a lot of people might seem to think is a foreign country. we have a balanced budget. we have a surplus. we are creating more jobs than any other state in the union and were doing this at the part-time

legislature that meets from a 140 days every other year. our legislators come in, pass laws and then they go home and live under the laws they just passed. so i have to ask. if we had a part-time congress, what they really get less done? we are getting is a lot of hysteria right now from a president more concerned about the next election and saving programs like medicaid, medicare, social security for the next generation. president obama's campaign full-time against the sequester he creates. he has to schoolteachers and border patrol agents, airport security as part of his portrait

of pain. now he's decided to shut down white house stewards. apparently now the only folks who can get a tour of the white house are those who contribute half a million dollars or more. this president's posture, it would be laughable if he hadn't taken it one step too far. dangerously releasing criminals onto our streets to make a political point. when you have a federally sponsored kill break and don't get confused. they federally sponsored jailbreak coming across the line from politics as a craven firmness in his aestheticism were everything goes to in the next election. but here is my concern.

if the president can't handle $85 billion cut that he suggested, how come we never believed that he will tackle trillion dollars deficits, unfunded entitlement obligations than enough to trillions of dollars more. our deficit is approximately equal to our gdp. every dollar we spend about 40 cents is borrowed from some bank in a place like china. the resolution to this deathdealing debacle led to the first downgrading of american credit in the history of this country and we have a president who refuses to put a single plan on paper they seriously addresses the deficit spending,

entitlement reform. those are inexplicable. but he's more than willing to do a photo of the first responders and teachers to decry the spending reductions that amount to less than 1%, 1% of the total annual budget. if the president is worried about overtime pay for capital janitors, i say what about the stagnant wages of millions of american workers? what about the one in seven americans resigned defeat stands? what about small businesses and homeowners they can't give lane because doctoring kissers and credits for americans all across this country. what about the more than 20 million americans who can't get full-time work to do the most anemic recovery since the great depression.

mr. president, your plans to tax and spend our nations of prosperity will fail as the macular earliest the economics youth barred from john maynard keynes. [applause] and let's be clear about what is the crux of the debate in washington? is whether americans will surrender to the creation of a massive welfare state in the image of western europe. my quarrel is not the legitimate role of government, but the unlimited role of government. [applause] investments in research and defense capability and border security are vital american issues, issues that washington needs to address.

but we have turned the constitution on its head in the federal government has inserted itself into every aspect of american society. and instead of allowing states to become laboratories of reform, washington's central planners are co-opting responsibilities reserved to the states and individuals under the tent amendment to the united states constitution. a federal policy of fiscal koresh and is now at the higher of the debates of medicaid expansion proposed under, care. unfortunately, some of our friends and allies in the conservative movement have folded in the face of federal bribery and mounting pressure from special interest groups. they tell us to take the money.

in the case of texas, $4 billion because it's free. that there is nothing free. there's nothing free because for starters it's our money. this is our money that we've tacked on to the national debt come to either by borrowing from china are pulling it up to britain prices. speculate, nothing stops washington from changing the rules down the road and increasing this day share, which indicates that texas of texas will be up to more than $18 billion over 10 years. that's a lot of money for the 14th largest economy in the world. all we have is a promise from a federal government they apparently can afford to keep dangerous criminals behind bars.

if the merits of the expenditure don't matter anymore. but i say they do. i say medicaid doesn't need to be expanded. he needs to be saved and reformed. we care about texas. we want them to the best care possible and that cannot happen at the program on its way to bankruptcy. if you don't believe me they vindicated spokane, just ask our president. four years ago he said and i quote, we can't simply put more people into a broken system that does the work, and quote. and yet that's exactly what he's doing or trying to do in the case of texas. the program has grown more rapidly at the state level than

medicaid. washington's solution is to grow even faster regardless of the fact medicaid program is unsustainable. here is what we need. instead of this one size fits all medicaid expansion number upon the care, flexibility to innovate, to enact patient centered market-driven reforms, state accountability requirements combined with limits on federal overage. we need to medicaid program that emphasizes personal responsibility with co-pays on a sliding scale, deductibles and premiums payments for emergency room care, small contributions so patients take ownership over to utilization of care. we need to tincher care is better for those who need it

most. to author health savings accounts. giving patients more care over health care spending. nothing about the medicaid expansion should move citizens from existing private coverage of employer-sponsored coverage to the public roles. nothing should do that. if anything, medicaid dollars should be used to keep people on private insurance in the best ways to help states provide health care is to allow states to design better, more efficient, more effective care and medicaid dollars. this will allow each state to tailor the program is specifically serve the needs of unique challenges those states have. we know more about and care more about the physical help and

economic health of our citizens than the federal government does. give states like texas the flexibility to fix that make a can create more cost efficient help care for our families, our neighbors, health care providers. absent those changes, the medicaid expansion amounts to one large incremental step towards single-payer socialized medicine. i for one will not accept that as long as i'm the governor of the state of texas. [applause] paris on the same night position is ideological, but that's only true to the extent been able to pay once those in the year ahead

is ideological. washington does that where you pay bills. they just charge it to grandchildren's account. our constitution requires a balanced budget. it just so happens that balanced budgets and one of the lowest tax and spending burdens in the nation corresponds with our number one ranking when it comes to job creation. we are leading to job creation all categories and all salary levels commensurate with the executive suite. the difference in texas comes back to the crux of the issue. i mentioned earlier, i said we don't believe in growing government to grow the economy. we don't believe in a massive expansion of the source of economic stimulation. we believe in putting more money in the hands of entrepreneurs and families.

we believe low-wage job shouldn't be let upon if they are stepping stone to a wage job. we believe professors of revenue for public priorities job creation, not higher taxation. [applause] e-mail, if washington were serious about job creation, it wouldn't pour hundreds of billions of dollars into so-called stimulus. it would reduce on energy exploration on federal lands and waters. the single fastest way to boost our economy and generate hundreds of thousands of dollars is to unleash the energy exploration across america. shell for missions offer america the cheapest natural gas in the world and natural gas is clean. why would this administration -- why would this administration to the energy solutions this continent, only to make us more

reliant on energy produced in foreign lands? the administration's policy is split dragging on keystone. it's blocking a coastal exploration. this intrusive regulations imposed by the epa and other like-minded federal agencies. what that means if america is at the mercy a south american date taters. common sense tells us it is time to drill for american energy to create american jobs and american prosperity. it is time for us to have a western hemispheric energy strategy. my approach is pretty simple. make what americans by. i would americans make and sell it to the world. that's what we need to be doing in this country. [cheers and applause]

that may close pages sharing with you my take on conservatism in america. the popular media narrative is that this country has shifted away from conservative ideals as evidenced by the last two presidential elections. that's the date they. that's what they say. that might feature of republicans actually nominate a conservative candidates in 2008 and 2012. [cheers and applause] but now we're told our party must shift appeal to the growing hispanic demographic. let me say send them about what appeals to hispanics in states like texas. it is the free enterprise agenda that allows small businesses to prosper, free of government

interference. it's the policies that guide the family unit is the best and closest form of government. it's the belief in life and faith in god. no one who risked life and limb to reach our shores comes here hoping for a government handout. they want freedom and a better shot that providing for families. that's true whether they're first-generation americans are like hispanics in texas, families lived here a long time before david crockett, sam dooley made their way south. my friends, this is what we as conservatives stand for. were not the people of equal outcomes for the cradle two the grave nanny state. for the people who say everyone deserves a shot, but success is only the product of hard work and innovation.

we had the ideology that is solely grounded in americans. we are compassionate without being cynical. government can be a tool to self-improvement and self empowerment, not self and trot it. the site deals as old as america and they will live on is the prevailing sentiment long after work on because they are what make america a unique. we will never enter the social and economic agenda of western europe. yes, it's an interesting place to vacation, but it's a sorry example of governance. we will pursue a uniquely efficient and personal responsibility and individuality. god bless you and may god continue to bless this great country we live in. thank you.

the night the simple fact is we're all getting older together and our fertility rates have dropped dramatically from her beginning to have been averted. med that makes our challenges is the release to entitlements and social security even greater. slow-growing developing countries have had for decades or fertility rates. japan and europe particularly in russia and outshine it said the impact of its one child policy. were better off than the rest of

the developed world, but our fertility rate has dropped below breakeven to 1.8, the lowest drop in the last three years in recorded history unlike most of the world we have a tried-and-true way to do with this democratic timebomb. democracy does not have to be destiny to change course. the path we could take is to allow for a strategic reform of immigratiimmigrati on law so we can bring young aspirational people that will rebuild the democratic tierney to make a ton of the system secure a jumpstart our economy in a way that will create an uplifting of hopes and dreams, that directly impact economic growth. >> supreme court justice anthony

kennedy testified about the court's budget

pingback by think for a dollar not a fan about what she's offered us as a model for government that stresses stability and empathy. she's not going to win. but with atorvastatin generations because we need examples and role models and her way of conducting politics come at building bridges do not bunkers is a model that we can use for the future. automatic budget cuts varna sequestration are unsustainable and would results in furloughs

and race to public safety. this is a little more than an hour and a half. >> committee will come to order. good morning to justice kennedy and justice breyer. we thank you for being here today. you both testified before this committee before and you're back. i always wonder how you decided comes before the subcommittee, what do you volunteer, whether someone volunteers before you. that sounds great. whatever the reason has come a worker year and we always look forward to hearing from the court and this is one of those rare occasions where we have two branches of government they get together in the same room and

talk. i think we all know it in and a judiciary that has the respect of the citizens is something very important to our country. the fact that you decided these controversial questions, obviously that is something our founding fathers thought was really important. and while your budget is not as big as some of the other federal agencies, you have one of the most important roles to play and we appreciate that. outside of the confirmation process, this is one of the few times the few branches of government get-together and interact as one of the most important things we can do to recognize and respect each other. i think you all know the federal government is continuing to operate an environment of scarce resources and i went to thank you off for the efforts you've made to be more efficient, to

contain cost as best you can. the budget request this year is $86.5 million. i noticed that you've implemented almost $2.2 million in savings and that's important. the city increased safety safety in your budget is going to fund restoration act duties in the building's south. so we look forward to hearing your testimony this morning. we look forward to hearing you talk about resources you need to carry our constitutional responsibilities. we welcome any thoughts you have about the court system in general and we want to work to make sure the courts have the resources it needs. we appreciate your efforts again to contain cost in difficult times. so now before you ask for

testimony, a picturesque high-ranking member for any comments you might have. >> i've had the privilege of having a before the subcommittee as chairman of the committee have announced ranking member. we didn't get to heavy before his last year, so i didn't get to rescue the question always on my mind, which is whether someone were to puerto rico can serve as president of the united states. i realize not being a lawyer i probably first have to get elected and i was trying to avoid that issue. the question is out there if you wish to render an opinion. i think it will be historic and i think i got one last time, but i'm not going to ask again. i would also like to welcome you both back. access is that in past years this is rare for branches to interact. because of this, questions range beyond strict appropriations

issues affecting only the supreme court. they're important insights and the judiciary as a whole. that is the case today as a result of sequestration, the federal judiciary must implement budget cuts that will affect all aspects of our system of justice. jermaine crenshaw and i received letters from the out is that the u.s. courts a detailed syntax of sequestration on the judiciary. to say the least, the impact of severe. then he would be unable to operate at the same level of efficiency or many employees may be for a voter laid off. it would be less supervision of programming for offenders, the things that help us prevent people in prison. core security will be less as our federal courts continue to do with trials that pose significant security issues.

i'm particularly worried about her federal defender program, where layoffs have occurred prior to sequestration and showed no signs at this point. reductions caused by sequester will undoubtedly force further difficult choices and undermined the ability of our federal public is who do their utmost to help their clients. many concerns we have enlisted some of the questions will be asking today. we welcome you back and it is a unique situation. this is one of those hearings i look forward to them if you can see, the world is watching us, so we will have what i know will be a good hearing. >> thank you, mr. serrano. the day to recognize justice kennedy for his statement if he could keep that within the five minute so it's time for questions and certainly submit your written copy for the

record. [inaudible] >> justice breyer joins me in bringing greetings in the chief justice on our colleague. we have with us the statutory officers of our court and counselor to the president and marshall of the court, kevin kline of our budget personal office has worked closely with your committee and the communication between your committee and our budget is extremely valuable. our public relations officer in kerry camp, deputy clerk. as you both indicated,

mr. chairman congressman serrano, this is an interesting constitutional dynamic here this morning. we talk often of separation of powers and checks and balances that we use those words interchangeably. separation of powers means each branch of the government has power of its own that it can exerciseand must exercise without interference from the branch. checks and balances mean you can't have completely separated departments. they have toured together and this is an example of checks and balances that we come here to indicate as a separate branch of the government, we think our budget request is a high

priority. judges benny's shirt and by tradition are very, very careful in the expenditure of public monies. we are good stewards of the public treasury. that doesn't mean there were instances where the congress can point out an expenditure might be too large or necessary. over the last few years, we've been extremely thankful to present you with a minimum budget. as you indicated, the budget for the entire branch of the government is .2% of the federal budget. our budget is .00 to present. our budget is in indicated a 74 million for the operations of the court, which will we talk about for buildings and grounds

but we are very proud that is part of our budget, the operations of the court is a 3% reduction over last year. looking at the reason for that 3% reduction looks to me like that might be one time. i'm not sure we can do it the next time, but we are committed to try because we think the courts must always set an example for prudent and proper respect for the people of the united states and the way in which we spend money. if you indicated, mr. chairman, the administrative office of the court's budget, which is 7 billion present tremendous importance to the functioning of the entire judiciary. the supreme court has cases the

public is interested in, but on a routine basis we are charged with ensuring the justice system as a whole is fair, accessible and most of our time is spent in reviewing cases in the routine course of the administration of the criminal and civil laws of this country. when the budget of $7 billion for the courts can this you, i believe next week, its import to a few things in mind. number one, 17 of the budget is for defender services. this is for the defender services. then we have a huge amount of budget as he vindicated, a very

substantial part of the budget is for the supervised release of those in the criminal system in pretrial sentencing reporter. this is absolutely urgent for the state gives society. the federal courts routinely come a day in and day out supervised by people in the federal prison population. the supervised by than 200,000 criminal offenders. if the congress thinks it's the automatic cut, this has to be cut back, you are doing a few things. number one coming up in the public safety at risk.

member to come you are archiving the ability to perform its function. i'm sure every agency that comes before you hook up a special reason why you should leave their badges on. please consider that .2% of the federal budget for the entire third ridge of the constitutional government is more than reasonable. what is at stake here are the efficiency of the courts and the courts are part of the capital infrastructure of the country. not only part to make the government work here that part of the economic infrastructure and social infrastructure. the rest of the world looks to the united states to cede judicial system that's fair, efficient, accessible and must have the necessary support and

resources for the congress of the united states, with respect to judicial compensation has been excellent and giving resources necessary for the proper discharge of duties only hope that will continue when you hear and consider the request of the administrative office of the courts next week. with that, perhaps my colleague, justice breyer had some opening remarks. we are waiting for your case on the puerto rican presidency to come to us. >> issue also have to be 35 years old. having met that requirement. >> i made -- soon. it may, someday.

but thank you for your semi-opinion. >> justice breyer, you have some comments you would like to meet? >> mr. chairman, i accrue with my colleague. any lawyer also unsure and always asks two questions. your question is could someone from puerto rico become president of the united states? i know many possible people from puerto rico who perhaps could be alike did administer them i will not say exactly who, but i would point out lawyers rss two questions. first, why? the inferior to that question is puerto rico an important part of this country? answer, yes. second question, why not? and when i say why not, i don't hear any answer.

i guess it two questions. >> thank you. i think you made the front page on the island in a new york, too. thank you. >> mr. serrano, maybe you could run for president. if nobody challenges that, it will be fine. if they do, this could gentlemen will be happy -- >> was interesting is if you recall the senate to be sure, passed a resolution saying john mccain could serve as president because he was born in the panama canal zone, which technically is not part of the territory. the senate passed a resolution saying he can't. i said i thought that was the course sunday to ruin that. i'm pretty confident for this opinion -- i understand. let me just say my exploratory

committee is coming together in the next half-hour. >> the likely explanation for product two, section one is a natural born citizen was so that we would nondebate to european royalty to come into the occupant of the white house. number one, had to be 35 years old so it would be an intent with the governor. the number two, port in the united states and europe only. thus the probable reason. >> will get back to that issue. let me start out questions. fide and that's whatit about the our committee appropriate money for the various agencies we

oversee. the one thing he talked about, justice kennedy then went and i would applaud that you all have tennessee supreme court is try to be very judicious, very efficient with use of taxpayer dollars. it's on everybody's mind now because of the issue of sequestration, which as everyone knows this kind of a washington word for an across-the-board run and type cut that nobody probably thought was going to happen. it was set up to be a deterrent to make sure congress did its work to find additional savings and the special committee that decided to do that didn't find the savings. on the good side, over the past couple of years, congress has reduced spending from 2010 to 2012. overall spending would come by

$95 billion that's the first time that's happened since world war ii. one thing we all agree on is if we're going to reduce spending, and make cuts to the budget, the battery to do that is due that specifically. that's where we sit here is the perp regents committee. he listened to testimony come and make tough set priorities and sometimes we had money and sometimes we take away money. regardless of how we feel about increasing our turkeys and spending, there's a better way to do it than the so-called sequestered. we find ourselves in that situation. you are part of that. reductions in the nondefense side or about 5% hit on the defense that it's a percent over the remaining seven months. my question and i think events are to a certain extent. you already are working as hard as you can to make sure you're spending money efficiently. but i have to ask you, since we

have the sequestered the cake tin on march 1, can you see from the supreme court sides, not from the broader -- we'll talk to some administrative courts and their issues, but from your standpoint in the supreme court, what kind of impact on the sequestered or have you while? does that mean you hear less cases? were your robes for an additional year or two. you have to save money somewhere. tell us that it's going to impact operations and number two, do you think this sequester bbs you anticipate it, things you do a good job, but the fact is that kuester maybe it's a month, maybe it's the year, maybe 10 years. what will that do in your overall planning to be more efficient and more effective?

can you touch on those two things? >> if it is for any long term, it would be inconsistent with the obligation of the congress to fund the courts. we do not controller workload. cases come to us. we don't go looking for cases. in a typical year, we have close to 9000 petitions, many of them from those convict in the federal criminal system in habeas corpus in the state criminal system. we can't control that they can't arbitrarily say we're going to only consider 6000 the other ones just go by the board. we have no choice in that, just like a district court has no choice in deciding how many criminal prosecutions is going to allow. if you force that choice coming to see the courts are not open,

that the ecosystem is not accessible and this is inconsistent with the rule of law. we can, our staff tells us, i think for a few months get by with contemporary furloughs or shorter workdays for staff. he could find a way to give us a shorter work day, i would most appreciate beauty. but over the long term, particularly for the courts as a rule and for our report, it is simply unsustainable. >> justice breyer. >> i would add you saw in the figures here the prepared statement that in fiscal year 2012, 21st century, died in 2012 we asked for a reduction of

2.8% the budget. we went up enough by that much in 2013 and never requested a 3.0% reduction. so we've been through pretty carefully and we've reduced. the way the producers hired a few people who understood those computers. and they are smart but never got away to share with agencies and the results as we've cut our costs a lot. so if we were going to save money by getting rid of them, our costs would go up. they wouldn't go down. then he say what do i do? these atomic children, and i told her school groups, how do i spend my day? i read. i read briefs. i read them and read them and i love clerks help, but i decided that wordprocessor. it's behind a desk and i write. and they are.

i read in a raid say to my son, if you do your homework well come yokich and you can do homework the whole rest of your life. that's what's going on in that building. we have police been there for security surfaces for doctors protect us, that protect public. and then we keep the courtroom reasonably clean. if you didn't keep it clean, it's not just us again who suffered. if somebody comes into a courtroom and they see a column, sort of has a hole in it and the inside is falling out over the floor. what do they think about justice in the united states? those things are symbols. they have to be grand. ours is, but they do have to be kept out. when you look around and say what are we doing we have a press office. it tells people to communicate with the public what's going on

and answer questions reporters have said people can know about this. what is there to cut? we go through, cut travel come to save with computers and managed to cut 3%. that's pretty good. and here we are. 8900 petitions. even if he said we'll do have, which would be wrong in my opinion, you wouldn't save any money because we are their reading them anyway. >> i might just say it so far as justice breyer indicated in the public awareness of what we are doing, when we accept a case, briefs are filed. the briefs and transcripts of your argument are put on our website at no charge. the american bar association does this for us.

i was looking at statistics yesterday and asked my clerks to guess how many downloads were there last year of supreme court opinions and transcripts of oral argument? the answer i was astounded myself as just a dirt 70 million down loads. that's the education function we are performing. we have to have tech ipo staff that can perform this function. as justice breyer indicated, the technology is working so fast that we hope there's cost savings, but it seems the price of the equipment goes up over time. >> i would really not like -- justice kennedy was just dedicated.

part of the work we do is talking to school groups as you do. you talk to the public and try to explain to them, you know, were trying to do her job and try to explain what the job is. people don't know. they don't understand. you get the same speech over and over and everybody does that present government, whose in public life and you try to communicate over and over. at the third of a million or a million people a day that website, and say thank you. that can be so much more than i can do in a thousand speeches. so i would like to change that. >> thank you for that. the second part of my question, would be sequester really increase your intensity?

the themes later on the wavelength regardless of the sequester. it's strange, unusual for a federal agent to come ask for less money one year than they did the last year. i think he should be applauded for that. while we recognize an additional 5% cut will have a negative impact, we appreciate the fact it sounds like to me are working every day to make sure whether it's intact now achieve or whether it's in your websites come and make it an effort to be as efficient as you can. we applaud that in thank you for that. mr. serrano. >> thank you, mr. chairman. once again, thank you for being here before us. i know you can't comment on specifics, but have you heard about the effects of the federal judiciary as a whole? we have concerns about the administration of our justice

system? and secondly, we're concerned about the budget cuts the federal defenders. at what point are we impacting provisions by cutting their budgets so much? in general, do you think the effect of beyond the courts and on this particular program? >> congressman serrano indicated in remarks, judge julia gibbons is the chairman of the budget committee for the united states coors will be before you next week and will have detailed answers on this for you. historically, the first things that are cut when they are sent across the board cut in the expenditures for the chorus are pretrial sentence, and probation officers. this is very dangerous. public defenders are also on the

list. i am not sure. it could be if you cut public defender in the indigent does not have an attorney, the court has to appoint one in payout funds for a private attorney that will be more. that will be a guess. i'm not sure that dynamic, but i will ask. this is serious business. we have my guess is 100,000 criminal prosecutions a year in the united states coors. we have to have a capital structure and infrastructure, a functioning system to handle this. when i first became a judge, but at lunch we will sit down and i'll ask, does natural most of the fact our statutory concepts?

dislikes jury is still a part of the concept of law? i've got so much workload of god god -- justice breyer mentioned is in sacramento that the eastern district, which would be the 12th biggest state in the nation that population, they've asked for years for extra churches. they have a weak case for 1500 cases per judge per year. we have four senior judges who are entitled to have only one third workload. they take a full workload because of their sense of duty and commitment and obligation that we simply can't take where resources who work in order to

show dedication to the idea of the rule of law and the congress misreports that they give in to the sources they need. >> to further question would be we know a nice budget cuts asada been in congress it's always been a discussion as he said it reached the fields their budget should not be touched. the courts need marfan name. but we are living through a difficult time and there's a desire to cut, cut, cut. at what point does it jeopardize the ability to provide fair representation under the constitutional mandate and protection? furthermore, will that be just somebody's opinion or at what point does the judiciary is both make some strong statements to congress to say we can't continue to do it this way. your constitution will be year.

cannot ever happened or we continue to negotiate over purchase? >> well, at some point the courts do not have the habit of creating crazies to obtain public attention. at some point if we start dismissing criminal prosecutions, this is dangerous to the rule of law. they sometimes a concurrent jurisdiction. the state court or the federal court. the old rule when you are practice was that it's an easy case the feds take it, it is hard to give it to the states. the states are undergoing even more trichotomy and cut being contemplated by the federal government. the state of california had a problem in los angeles county,

bigger than the entire judicial jury. i said find out -- they're going to terminate some judges. at that 10 judges -- no, 10 courthouses in order to pay for other things. that means there's going to be more. >> i understand the difficulty you're in. i think difficult because everyone understands what i'm doing to support 90 days. one question you can ask is what a cut in this particular budget actually be greater public expense? said the way i think about it as they see of course crime exacts enormous cost ad